Club Management Issue

Peter Clark wrote in message . ..

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

The only pilot I've heard dinged for accepting flight time for
compensation was a guy hauling skydivers for no pay, in someone else's
aircraft. Basically, he was time-building by logging hours in his
logbook that he would have otherwise had to pay for by renting an
aircraft. He was also conducting a commercial operation at the time,
but that's a seperate issue.

In this case, Mark owns his own aircraft (see original post). If
Mark pays for the costs of the flight, who is compensating him with
flight time? The answer is no one. If you pay for the entire cost
of the flight, you have a much greater latitude on the types of
flights you can make.

If my brother needs a ride to an airport 200 miles away (for
whatever reason), he just calls me, we hop in my plane and I drop him
off. No problem. Now if I want to share any of the costs of that
flight, the FAA man would definitely be interested. I had no reason
to fly to that airport other than to drop off my bro. If I want to
start collecting money for that sort of thing, I begin to look a lot
like a Part 135 air taxi, rather than a private pilot. Same flight,
with the only difference being that money (compensation) changed
hands. Where private vs. commercial flying is concerned, the FAA has
spelled out pretty clearly what the exceptions are in the regs
(although IMHO, there are still some fuzzy areas).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

lid wrote in message .. .
snip
I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
admissible in court if there is ever a problem.

Haaahaa! That's a good one! You don't really think that, "I called
Bob at the FSDO and he said it was OK" is going to fly in any FAA
court do you?

Since you've jumped out of the academic and into the real world, the
fact is that you could call 3 different people in a FSDO and get 3
different answers. Then you could call 5 other FSDOs and get more
different answers. None of that will help you in court.

I agree that this newsgroup is not the final word on the regs, but
in my experience, you'll do no better by calling a FSDO for legal
interpretations. What they tell you carries about as much weight as
the comments you'll find here. FWIW, I find the folks here more
knowledgable about the regs than most of the FSDO inspectors I've met.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
your club or FBO do in this situation?

I would think that all the costs are the costs of the repair, hence
chargable to the owner.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

wrote in message


In your research, did you find definitions of the terms "favor" and/or
"goodwill"? Anyone I have ever flown anywhere for any purpose has
thanked me for it---that sounds like "goodwill".

No, I didn't. The terms "favor", "goodwill" nor "compensation" or "for
hire" are defined anywhere I looked. As I said elsewhere, taken to the
extreme, none of us can fly friends or family with us even on local pleasure
flights when we take no money because we may be generating "favor and
goodwill".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
pilot pays more than his share or not.

Mike
MU-2


"BRO" wrote in message
. au...
Oh come on.
A court would throw this out in an instant - because Mark shared the cost
no
matter how you try to twist it.
In reality he is paying more than his share!

He would like to be reimbursed for only the fuel, not the maintenance
which
is his portion of the cost of doing the flight!!!!!
like it or not - flying your own plane costs twice the fuel (or abit more)
for every hour you fly.

You can figure all the combinations and permutations, but no matter how
you
twist it, it's a private flight.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...
Wow! Good thing this issue came up when the dollars were relatively
few!
All kinds of issues here. The following is just my opinion:

The owners are responsible for maitenance, they should pay for the cost
of
"failed maitenance". That includes all the related costs. Perhaps they
will learn a lesson about preventative maitenance.

The owners should get their portion of the rental fees for the return
flight.

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
k.net...
First off, I'm not directly involved in this situation, but I am
trying
to
gain an understanding on how other FBOs and flying clubs deal with
something
like it.

One of our club members was flying our 182 -- which the club leases
from
the
two gentlemen who own it -- and had what appeared to be an alternator
failure. I'll call this person "Paul" to keep things straight.
Anyway,
"Paul" landed at an airport several hundred miles away late on Sunday
night.
There is an A&P at the field during normal working hours, but not on
Sunday
night. Rather than wait, Paul decided to rent a car and drive home,
leaving
the 182 behind.

On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his,
who
we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the remote
airport
in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is not a member of
the
flying club, but is friendly with several of our members and was
willing
to
help us out. Once all of this was arranged, Paul was asked if he
would
like
to go along on the trip, but he said he was unable to do so. So
instead,
one of our club CFIs and another club member ("Luke") -- who were
scheduled
to do some instrument training that evening in a different aircraft --
agreed to go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things
squared away.

Despite it being a long evening for everyone, it all worked out pretty
well.
The aircraft is back, the repairs were fairly cheap, Luke got his
instrument
lesson on the way home, and nobody even missed a scheduled flight in
the
182. But a debate is raging concerning the costs for getting
everything
done. Unfortuneately, the club does not seem to have any specific
rules
about this kind of situation. This lack of guidance from the club
rule
book
rather suprises me, and I hope to fix that issue in the very near
future.
But for the moment, we need to make up policy as we go along.

There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100
for
the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182
amounted
to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would
like
to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the
182's
flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which
would
normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.

Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to
be
pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with
the
club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What
would
your club or FBO do in this situation?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

Mike Rapoport wrote:
You should read some of the articles and NTSB opinions that have been
referenced on this thread. They have found that it doesn't matter if the
pilot pays more than his share or not.


There's a pretty good summary of many of the issues discussed in this thread at
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html "Traps For The Unwary: Business
Flying And The "Compensation Or Hire" Rule". Complete with references.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
be violated by the FAA.

Agreed. Mark should just decide he's going to go out and
help get the plane back. He can hold screwdrivers, rent a
car or walk to go get parts, read the repair manual, be an
extra set of eyes and hands to do whatever needs to be done
to help. Then his purpose is the same as the passengers,
and they can share.

As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
problem with it.

I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Dude" wrote:

He should claim
that it was his desire to help his friends get the plane back. That may be
a weak excuse for commonality of purpose, but only if he had another
purpose.

It's not all that weak. He should say he'll go, but only if
he can help once he's there. There's always some extra work
he can do to help. He could even let the other pilot be PIC
on the way out.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.

IMHO, the way the rules work for motor vehicles is a good argument for
having the rules interpreted the way the FAA is doing now. There are plenty
of people who stretch the concept of what's commercial and what's not,
engaging in commercial operations in motor vehicles without a proper
license. This is exactly the kind of stretching that would happen in
aviation if the FAA didn't take such a hard-nosed stance.

I'd love to think that pilots are a unique group and above that sort of
thing, but history says otherwise. Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service. So, the example you're providing doesn't appear to me to
offer any difference than what the situation is in aviation.

Pete

I agree that this newsgroup is not the final word on the regs, but
in my experience, you'll do no better by calling a FSDO for legal
interpretations. What they tell you carries about as much weight as
the comments you'll find here. FWIW, I find the folks here more
knowledgable about the regs than most of the FSDO inspectors I've met.

That is a really sad statement. I'm not doubting its validity, though
my contact with FSDO has been very seldom. But it is sad nonetheless.